Swan Poisoned by Angler's Lead Weight

[Dick Dastardly]

Just a quick one for all the "lets kiss ass,role over and die" brigade-

 

Ive got tubs of lead shot (legal sizes I hasten to add,although I do have illegal sizes that I still use abroad) that Ive been using for over 15 years now.They are the one shot non spill dispenser type. Ive also got some of the "real easy to spill!" refill pots as well,also brought at the same time. I very rarely bother to "recycle" it and any discarded ends up in the bin.

 

Im losing a lot of shot aint I?

[Anderoo]

Who knows what amount of disunity there is in other sports - I don't, as I'm not involved or interested. I expect there are clay pigeon shooters who believe shooting live pigeons is wrong, for whatever (personal) reason.

 

I don't think it's 'disunity' that endangers the future of angling. Of course there's disunity - there are millions of us, all different backgrounds, education, experiences, morals, viewpoints! It would be very weird if we all thought the same. Angling involves living creatures which do not choose to be involved. Of course there are disagreements over what's acceptable and what isn't.

 

I just wrote out a long and boring reply, but instead I'll leave it at this: fishing WILL change over time. We may or may not have a say in it. I'd prefer that we did.

[gozzer]

I'm afraid that unless there is more unity amongst angers, then we won't have a say in what happens.

 

There is a difference between disunity and disagreement about methods. There are many aspects of angling that I personally don't agree with, but I would never call for a ban on any legal method. It's up to the individual to fish to their own conscience on what is acceptable and what is not. Angling has changed and will continue to do so. How much of a say we have in those changes will depend on how we react to outside pressures. Arguing amongst ourselves will only weaken our stance in the long run.

[barblesss]

I'm afraid that unless there is more unity amongst angers, then we won't have a say in what happens.

 

There is a difference between disunity and disagreement about methods. There are many aspects of angling that I personally don't agree with, but I would never call for a ban on any legal method. It's up to the individual to fish to their own conscience on what is acceptable and what is not. Angling has changed and will continue to do so. How much of a say we have in those changes will depend on how we react to outside pressures. Arguing amongst ourselves will only weaken our stance in the long run.

 

Unity argument.... Junk. We are united , we all want to fish and stand together.

There is nothing wrong with debate on how we can strengthen our sport, and one of those is obviously to become friendly to nature around us. Crying 'disunity' when we try to do this is obviously going to do more harm than good. If we are made to look like a group who ruin the environment around us (which we don't at THE MOMENT) , then we need to address these issues. The lead ban was obviously one of them. What idiot here was against the lead bann .. some tw*t. Is that disunity then?, or changing for the better?

Some people are just plain greedy and selfish and not prepared to budge.

Wake up some of you complete bone idle Knuckleheads.

[Dick Dastardly]

I was against the lead shot ban by the fact that the blame was being laid at the wrong feet so never (as has been now proved by time) not solving the problem.

 

I will concede that it would have been worth us (and dont forget that we brought it in volunterily before any legislation was passed) being part of a universal lead ban (in the relevant sizes that is) if it had in fact been universal....but it wasnt as one discharged shot gun cartridge chucks out more shot than an angler should ever loose....and still does!

 

Dont have to be near water as Im sure that a swan just doesnt pick up the appropriate sized pieces of grit just out of water.

 

Out of interest what do the lead shot ban soporters think we have gained from its initial banning?

[gozzer]

I wasn't against the lead ban (I find the newer shot better in fact). It was the way that it was reported with lies and exaggeration that angered me. Does that exclude me from being a " complete bone idle Knuckle head" and a "tw*t", barbless?

 

You say that you think anglers are united, but you also say that live baiting should be banned. What happens if there is a proposed ban on live baiting? I presume that you would vote in favour of a ban. Then there is a vote on the use of keepnets, and all the anglers who don't use them think, yes, I'd ban them. Then same with taking the odd fish for the pan, and so on. I don't like the idea of bolt rigs so should I propose a ban on them? If calling for a ban on a method you don't use or like, is your idea of unity then it justifies my earlier post about my disillusionment with some of my fellow angers.

Edited July 19, 2006 by gozzer

[Steve Walker]

I wasn't against the lead ban (I find the newer shot better in fact). It was the way that it was reported with lies and exaggeration that angered me.

 

Mostly the Daily Mirror, wasn't it?

 

Like Budgie, I've still got dispensers of (legally sized) lead bought before the ban. I don't find the substitutes to be quite as good as lead, although they are massively better than the rubbish that was available at first. They are still not dense enough, but at least they don't damage the line or fall off. They're still bloody expensive though. I reckon that if they'd whacked a tax on lead shot to make them as expensive as the substitutes, people would have been a lot more careful not to lose them. Impractical, of course, but a thought.

[Steve Burke]

This is one of the rare times when I disagree with Budgie!

 

I supported the lead ban and indeed had a letter published to this effect in one or both of the weeklies at the time. The reasons were twofold. Firstly, any swan or other bird dying as a result is one too many. Period! Secondly, I was concerned about the image of angling.

 

Many fumed that the first lead substitutes were very poor, but I wrote that necessity is the mother of invention and that would soon be solved. Indeed it has been and, even though my fingers don't work properly, I have no problems with the modern products.

 

I considered (and still do) that the fact that the shooting fraternity, and for that matter the boaters who use lead in fuel, contributed more lead into our waterways than anglers do was a red herring. Yes, of course we needed to point this out, but we also needed to ban lead ourselves and additionally be seen to be doing so.

 

Today, we need to point out that anglers voluntarily gave up lead shot in the problem sizes, that it was made illegal to sell soon after, and moreover this was many years ago. Unfortunately this message still hasn't fully got through to editors, and is being used by our opponents to their advantage.

 

Nonetheless, we can still show that we did the right thing, and that we do care.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Steve Burke

[gozzer]

Mostly the Daily Mirror, wasn't it?

 

Like Budgie, I've still got dispensers of (legally sized) lead bought before the ban. I don't find the substitutes to be quite as good as lead, although they are massively better than the rubbish that was available at first. They are still not dense enough, but at least they don't damage the line or fall off. They're still bloody expensive though. I reckon that if they'd whacked a tax on lead shot to make them as expensive as the substitutes, people would have been a lot more careful not to lose them. Impractical, of course, but a thought.

 

The reporting of the lead shot fiasco, reminded me of another go at angling around that time. it was a kids TV programme, Blue Peter, Magpie type of thing. They had a mass of mono' line allegedly picked up on a short stretch of the R Witham, near Kirkstead I think. At the time, this water was primarily a fine line match water. The line they had on the show was, all about 6-10 bs and was as shiny as newly bought stuff, it hadn't dulled like it does in the open air and sunlight. Obviously, to a non angler, and especially kids, it looked like it was all above board. But anyone with a knowledge of angling and the water could see it for the fake it was.

[Dick Dastardly]

I suppose my point is that despite us having a lead ban we still get the blame for it .Therefore we havent actually "shown" our concern/done the right thing in the eyes of our "accusers! We have maybe eased our "concience"! but it isnt our selves we have to convince is it.

 

Swans are still dying of lead poisoning so we havnt really achieved anything on this front either! Maybe if we had fought the ban a bit more (at this point dont get me wrong if we had been doing our bit with everyone else by stopping using lead I would have been in total agreement regardless of how small our contribution was) the problem may have been looked into a little more deeply and swans still wouldnt be dying?

 

Barbless,if we are all so united then why do you want to see pikers lose the right to live bait? like Gozzer said there is no unity or personal sacrifice in getting something banned you dont do/use but other "fellow anglers" do is there? Do you really feel this will "apease" the antis?

 

We do all share common ground by our love to catch fish.We also share common ground in the fact that to catch them we stick hooks in them......and sadly the real issue that we have in common is that the antis object to these two things! no matter how we decide to go about it!

 

Anderoo mentions that some clay shooters may not like the killing of animals.Yes Im sure he is right! in fact Im one of them! point again is that shooters are prepared to accept fellow shooters personal moral/sporting decissions and accept that te common enemy that will stop them all is the anti shooting lobby full stop.The fact that they still use lead shot and dont (seemingly anyway) get a load of stick for doing so is testament to their unity.

 

He also mentions that angling has changed over the years,I prefer the word evloved.All the positive changes have come from within angling it self not from out side.Angling will hopefully continue to change/evolve but I hope this is determined from within by us anglers and not from outside interests who have but one agenda...and that is to stop angling in any form.

 

Am I a sleeping "complete bone idle Knucklehead" or is it the "everythings fine" brigade who are indeed sleeping?

 

Only this Monday did I visit a once beautifull water that has now been wrecked,stripped of fish and home to both jet skis and wake boarders.Only people who now fish it are two friends of the owner who come down a couple of times a year,not that you would want to be there any more.

 

"Weve fished here for years"

"Why should we pay more"

"there will always be fishing here I dont care who owns it"

" Not interested in politics mate I just want to catch carp"

"there's no problem,we are all united on this one"

 

All still rang in my ears as I stood there looking at it.And I dont mind admitting it there was a tear in my eye............

 

The Anglers Apathy Assosiation? no one could be bothered to join.

Edited July 19, 2006 by BUDGIE